Jump to content

WTS: Transferable WWII German MP44


Recommended Posts

Decided to sell my WWII collection.  First on the list is my all matching MP-44. One of the most iconic and sought after weapons on the planet. All matching, vet bring back with true combat wear. Never re blued. It missed the amnesty but was carefully reactivated a long time ago. Fully transferable. All NAF rules apply. I have had the pleasure to shoot it many times and has always run flawlessly. This is one of those guns that always takes the audience. Appreciating in value everyday. Asking 31K.  I have plenty of pics for serious buyers    Vapartsguy@aol.com


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect. If the MP was a registered DEWAT, registered prior to the end of the '68 Amnesty, it has C+R transfer status. As a reactivated DEWAT, noted by the seller, its transfer status does not change due to reactivation, and it remains C+R transferable. Transfer status, determined by date/form of original registration, stays the same for an MG unless:  it is provably incorrect as it is archived in the NFRTR and then it can be corrected through appeal to ATF/NFA; the date of it's manufacture is verifiable as 50 or more years ago and then it's transfer status will include C+R. This has started to happen with post-'68 remanufactured MGs which are gradually acquiring C+R eligibility as they age to 50 years from date of manufacture. Eventually all registered MGs will qualify for C+R transfer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GUY'S  sorry but its very easy for a C+R to loose that status even though ALL transferable MG's will become C+R's in 2036 the guns that WERE registered DEWATS and anything restored by a SOT that improperly interpreted the regs DESTROYED that history FOREVER!  SOME HIGHLY RESPECTED IN THE INDUSTRY TODAY , continue to make that mistake. ANY SOT INFO ON A RECEIVER MUST REMAIN FOREVER! PERIOD   FAXTS here in TEXAS killed several that have been resubmitted to the tech dept and its ALWAYS DENIED.  IN ORDER TO RETAIN C+R STATUS FOR A FORM 1 DEWAT, THE OWNER MUST APPLY FOR A FORM 4  with EXACTLY the SAME MFG'r importer info on the ORIGINAL form 1 approval to make it live. AFTER IT IS APPROVED then IF A SOT does the repair, HE MUST NOT apply HIS information to the weapon in ANY MANNER, and only log it in as a repair. ANYTHING ADDED TO THE RECEVER OR ALTERATION AFTER THE FACT VOIDS THE C+R STATUS!  I RESPECT BUBBA  ALL THE WAY BUT WE DO NOT AGREE ON HIS VIEWS CONCERNING C+R'S AT ALL!  I HAVE DONE THIS MANY TIMES WITH SEVERAL CHALLENGED BY THE TECH DEPT SINCE APPRX 2010  NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE WAS REJECTED! MY LAST CHALLENGE WAS IN 2019 ! I HAVE EXPLAINED THIS IN DETAIL SEVERAL TIMES, AND ITS NOT THAT HARD!  YOU CANT TAKE THE SIDEPLATE OFF A COLT AIRCRAFT VICKERS AND PUT GROUND GUN PARTS ON IT AND KEEP C=R STATUS! THE RULES ARE PLAIN , A C+ R MUST BE EXACTLY AS IT LEFT THE FACTORY ON ITS BIRTHDAY. repairs , refinish, NO PROBLEM AIR COOLED TO WATER COOLED NOT POSSIBLE ! a barreld action can NOT be transferred as a C+R. it must be as a modern weapon. IF RESTORED to its OLD original configuration, it REGAINS its STATUS ONLY AFTER THE WORK IS COMPLETED a 1911 COLT .45 cut for ADJUSTABLE sights is NOT a C+R, but it CAN be restored and regain its STATUS . sometimes a ATF "challenge" can be fixed with PICS and a written explanation , BUT many times they will require it be sent to TECH for physical examination. I HAVE DONE BOTH AND WON THEM ALL.  one small but important "loophole" exists that ATF accepts concerns SOME not all, GERMAN MG-08's and RUSSIAN 1910 WW II GUNS only. during WW II BOTH sides used complete and partial guns to complete a running weapon in their caliber. if in the registry b-4  JUNE 1970 without modern SOT info they are legit C+R's. in closing I did examine a JAP 96 done by FAXTS. the owner from a C+R only state sent pics not showing the markings and they granted the transfer. had they requested the GUN it would have failed like every other one I know of.   (sigh)  cheers MIKE

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what I said that required invoking my name so please elaborate and tell me what I have said about C+R MGs with which you disagree.  "I RESPECT BUBBA  ALL THE WAY BUT WE DO NOT AGREE ON HIS VIEWS CONCERNING C+R'S AT ALL!"  Just an aside, the use of all these CAPs doesn't make your comments more accurate or improve the content. No reason to SHOUT. It makes it difficult to take your comments seriously.
By the way the C+R eligibility of an MG by being 50 years old or more from date of manufacture started already on Dec. 2, 2018. MGs remanufactured or newly made receivers between that date and today are now eligible for C+R status as being 50 years old. Not 2036. Very few were reman'ed so early but no doubt there are some and more and more will be added every year. By the end of 2036 all MGs remanufactured or newly manufactured will be C+R eligible since May 19, 1986 was the date that the last form 2 for a newly or remanufactured MG could be submitted for registration.

A "reactivation" by an individual on form 1 does not need to be done by the applicant, but the applicant still must mark the gun with his name and address as the "maker" of the gun. A Form 1 reactivation is "making" and "making" is regarded as "manufacturing" under ATF's rules and thus REQUIRES the maker identified on the approved Form 1 to mark the MG with his name and address. An FFL07/SOTII who reactivates a registered DEWAT received on a Form 5 is also "manufacturing" when doing a reactivation under his license, and files a form 2 indicating "reactivation" and then is REQUIRED to mark the receiver with his name and address as the "manufacturer". A gunsmith or an 07/II can do the work as a "repair"  and don"t have to mark the gun since they are not legally doing the reactivation. I don"t think anyone is really confused over this.

I had several go arounds with ATF over 20 years ago trying to get them to eliminate the requirement to mark reactivations by individuals and by 07s but their lawyers insisted it was important for that regulation to remain. I don't believe the marking requirement has changed and have no information that it has. Too bad as it is defacing the gun.

"one small but important "loophole" exists that ATF accepts concerns SOME not all, GERMAN MG-08's and RUSSIAN 1910 WW II GUNS only. during WW II BOTH sides used complete and partial guns to complete a running weapon in their caliber. if in the registry b-4  JUNE 1970 without modern SOT info they are legit C+R's."

Explain the "before June 1970" date please. Submission for '68 amnesty registration had to be dated prior to Dec.2, 1968 for proper Form 4467 registration. However, the approval could be date long past the date of the end of the Amnesty but submission had to be within the dates of the prescribed Amnesty period. A complete, live receiver registered prior to the end of the Amnesty is regarded as a C+R regardless of the internals and caliber. There is no requirement that the internals of an MG be factory or matching or a specific caliber for C+R eligibility. If I am remiss in this understanding, point out the regulation, please.

I've had a fair number of events with ATF concerning vintage MGs for which ATF no longer has a copy of the original registration to confirm registration prior to the end of the '68 Amnesty and thus C+R eligibility for transfer. In all cases ATF accepted that the MGs in question could be transferred as C+R because they had been in the system for many years and had been transferred many times. This is a forgone conclusion simply because the NFRTR is about 50% accurate, a figure actually authenticated by ATF in an agency meeting years ago, and also actually in the public record of a prosecution quite a few years ago,  and ATF really does't want to be taken to court on such a minor paperwork issue and have to defend the accuracy of the registry. Plus it's only fair.

Here's the rub concerning C+R transfer status of any MG whether an MG with a different model side plate than listed in the form 4, or an incomplete receiver, etc, etc. Using side plates from C+R eligible MGs to build a different model but same family MG: the examiners never see the guns, are not trained and have no means of assessing that the gun is no longer the gun identified on the paper work since the paperwork info remains the same after the conversion has been completed. The transfer application paperwork for the MG08 that has been changed into a 1910 Maxim still appears to the examiners as a C+R MG08 due to the date/form of original registration as listed in the registry and will be approved to an FFL03 applicant despite no longer having C+R status. Same for empty receivers of C+R MGs, most commonly MG08s, but also there have been Diggers, BMGs of various sorts, Vickers, Japan T92s and LMGs, quite a variety of other types of MGs. It may not proper, correct or "legal" but the system under which transfers take place does not filter for these transfers. 

I have built many, many side plate 1910s using C+R MG08 side plates to increase the number of available transferable 1910s in the NFRTR and have often been asked by the owners if they can appeal to have the ID changed on their paperwork to "1910 Russian Maxim" so that it reflects the actual hardware. No, they can't for a variety of reasons.

Point of information: there are only about 10 verified C+R 1905 and 1910 Russian Maxims in the registry. I had two C+R 1910s for quite a while and know of several correct 1905s, but that is the number of actual C+R eligible Russian Maxims available to collectors.FWIW


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUBBA , FIRST let me say I have the most respect for you that possible and have often stated you are the only person I would trust any of my treasures to. my use of caps is not an effort to shout , I do it to simply make sure it gets noticed. case in point, your post. so much information one gets lost trying to take it all in. I mentioned you only because of your interpretation of C+R's in general many times expressed here on sturm. I know all about the "make date" etc. your opinion concerning rewats is the exact opposite of what has occurred on my end. I have done many and never marked or added anything to the gun or paperwork. these did not slip by , several have been examined by tech and my methods have all passed except one.  it is impossible to type any sentence of the regulations and cover all the items that make one apply . when a item is brought to me and its status has been forever lost it breaks my heart. each one is a treasure and as value's climb more are coming to light. some owners have quoted your opinion when I advise the path I take, and  is the only reason I mentioned you.  it was never intended to be any type of attack . I regret ever getting involved as nothing will change this guns status anyhow. he also did not deserve everything that followed, it was a simple honest offer to sell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"......your opinion concerning rewats is the exact opposite of what has occurred on my end. I have done many and never marked or added anything to the gun or paperwork."


Only Form 1 applicants and FL07/SOTIIs are required to mark reactivations assuming the proper ATF/NFA transfer or application protocols were followed.

Marking a reactivation by a Form 1 individual "maker" or an FFL07/SOTII is not my opinion but is an NFA regulation. Again, a Form 1 reactivation is a "making" under ATF/NFA rules and a "making" is a form of manufacturing under ATF/NFA definitions.. A "manufactured" firearm requires being marked with the "makers" ID and address. This is not rocket science and is the law under ATF/NFA regulations. The Form 1 applicant has legally applied to be the "maker" so must apply his ID and address to the receiver of the firearm. He does not have to to do the work himself, but he must mark it with his ID, and the person who actually does the work is not in the picture. The paperwork info remains exactly it appears in the NFRTR on the original registration and does not change for the reactivation. I have never said anything other than the above.

There are a number of reasons why ATF might not make an issue of the reactivations that you did and that you "never marked" and here are some of them. You claim that your 'experience" is the opposite of my "opinion" on rewats but you do not explain any of the context of the reactivations to support your claim. You just claim that I am wrong despite the fact that I have never posted any comment other than the current regs for reactivations with specific responses to individual situations. The reasons for your "experience"  could easily be as follows. You do not reveal the status of your licensing, if any, or the transfer status of the MGs that you reactivated so your experience has no context by which to understand your position.

Many DEWATs have transferred on tax paid Form 4s rather than by the correct use of a tax exempt Form 5 and have been reactivated by regular FFL01 gunsmiths, by their owners or by others. I've repaired a lot of these for the owners whose reactivations were poorly done. These reactivations do not require marking with ID and address simply because they have transferred as "live" MGs and were not processed according to the correct ATF protocols for registered DEWATs. There is neither a record of a form 1 application or an 07/02 From 2 reactivation in the NFRTR for these MGs because neither of these processes were used for reactivation. The proper transfer of a registered DEWAT is tax exempt Form 5. Only DEWATs reactivated under Form 1 approval or by FFL07/SOTIIs who received them on tax exempt Form 5s are required to mark the guns. No one else is.

You do not explain the transfer status of the guns that you reactivated so without that context info there is no way to know if you were required to mark the guns or not.

Were you an FF07/SOTII at the time and did you receive the guns on Form 5s? If so you were required to file form 2s and mark the guns.

Were you an FFL01 or 07/II and the registered DEWATs were currently on Form 4s when you received them under your license and did the work? If so you were under no legal requirement to mark the MGs since they were already live.

If you did not have an FFL01 or an 07/II and were possession of a registered MG not registered to you, was the registrant in your shop while you did the work and be there at any time during which you had possession of the MG. If this was the context then you did not have to mark the guns.

Did the owners of the DEWATs have approved form 1 applications and have you do the work? If so, you had no legal obligation to mark the guns.

The above notes some contexts for the reactivation of registered DEWATs for which you must mark the gun and a couple where you do not have to.

That you personally had experiences with ATF that appear to be at odds with the experiences of others does not invalidate the rules and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did know the rules.

I have done about 150 reactivations, more or less, of all sorts of MGs with a wide variety of transfer status, but almost all under an FFL07/SOTII. Before being licensed, and I've had various FFLs since 1977, I reactivated quite a few registered DEWATs that transferred to me by taxed Form 4s so no marking requirement. MGs reactivated while registered by Form 4 do not have the correct paper trail for a reactivation. In my opinion ATF has no issue with that since they have some flexibility if an MG has been in the system for a long time and has multiple transfers giving it legitimacy. FWIW 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...